Full bill text rendering is coming soon.
In the meantime, read the full text on Congress.gov ↗.
Core Policy Mechanism Top 4
Tax Court subpoena, discovery, and deposition authority
Expands Tax Court power to issue subpoenas for witnesses and evidence — including electronic records — and to take depositions, adding explicit pre-hearing discovery authority intended to help resolve tax disputes faster. Gives the Tax Court explicit power to extend the deadline for filing a tax deficiency petition when fairness requires it, based on the facts of each case — a discretionary authority the court did not clearly have before. Requires automatic extension of the deadline to file a Tax Court petition whenever the court's clerk's office or electronic filing portal is inaccessible — including during government shutdowns — for the duration of the closure plus 14 extra days.
- Population Scope Low Directly affects Tax Court litigants, their counsel, and witnesses — a small fraction of the U.S. population involved in the IRS deficiency disputes.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low No funds are authorized, appropriated, or obligated; court administrative costs from expanded discovery are incidental and unquantified.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Medium Expands procedural tools — pre-hearing discovery, electronic-records subpoenas, equitable tolling, and automatic deadline extensions — binding court conduct and deadlines rather than altering substantive tax liability.
- Degree of Discretion Granted High Equitable tolling is fully discretionary ('based on facts and circumstances'), giving the Tax Court broad case-by-case authority to extend filing deadlines with no enumerated limiting criteria.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Low Adds procedural obligations on the court to manage expanded discovery and tolling requests, but creates no new penalties or compliance infrastructure for external parties.
- Temporal Commitment High Persists indefinitely until Congress acts to repeal or modify it.
No signal yet
Core Policy Mechanism Top 4
Contempt authority for special trial judges
Grants special trial judges the power to punish contempt of court, with sentences capped at the level of a Class C misdemeanor, while preserving their existing authority to impose other sanctions. Allows special trial judges to hear any Tax Court case — not just currently permitted categories — when both parties agree, provided the Tax Court adopts rules to implement this expanded jurisdiction.
- Population Scope Low Directly affects parties and witnesses appearing before special trial judges — a small subset of Tax Court litigants.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low No funds are authorized, appropriated, or obligated by this provision.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Medium Creates a new statutory enforcement authority — contempt power with criminal-level sentencing — for a class of judges that previously lacked it, a meaningful but procedurally-scoped change to judicial authority.
- Degree of Discretion Granted Medium Contempt punishment is discretionary within a penalty cap, and the consent-based jurisdiction expansion requires both party agreement and court rulemaking before it becomes operative.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Medium Introduces a new criminal-penalty enforcement mechanism (Class C misdemeanor cap) administered by special trial judges, adding a recurring adjudicative load within Tax Court proceedings.
- Temporal Commitment High Same as above.
No signal yet
Core Policy Mechanism Top 4
Apply federal disqualification rules to Tax Court judges
Requires Tax Court judges and special trial judges to follow the same conflict-of-interest and recusal rules that apply to federal district court judges, closing a gap in existing law.
- Population Scope Low Directly regulates Tax Court judges and special trial judges — a small, defined group — with indirect benefit to litigants in those proceedings.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low Same as above.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Medium Creates a new statutory recusal obligation for Tax Court judges by incorporating 28 U.S.C. § 455 — a new enforceable impartiality duty binding judicial conduct, not a restructuring of substantive law.
- Degree of Discretion Granted Low Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is largely mandatory ('shall disqualify') upon specified circumstances, leaving judges minimal discretion over whether to recuse.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Low Relies on the self-executing recusal standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455 with no new enforcement infrastructure, penalties, or compliance reporting requirements.
- Temporal Commitment High Same as above.
No signal yet
Carve-outs, Exemptions, Eligibility Top 4
Exception
Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any dismissal which is solely based on a determination of the Tax Court not to toll the period for filing a petition under section 6213(a).
- Population Scope Low Affects only parties whose Tax Court petitions are dismissed solely because the court declined to toll a filing deadline — a narrow, case-specific class.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low No funds are authorized, appropriated, or obligated by this conforming exception.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Low Carves out a narrow class of dismissals from a specific legal consequence, leaving underlying substantive law unchanged.
- Degree of Discretion Granted Low The exception is self-executing and categorical, leaving no discretionary authority to any actor.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Low Creates no new enforcement mechanism, compliance obligation, or administrative load.
- Temporal Commitment High Same as above.
No signal yet
No possible riders have been surfaced for this bill.
Summary
The Tax Court Improvement Act (TAS Act) updates the rules and authority of the United States Tax Court, which handles disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. Among other elements, the bill * expands the Tax Court's tools for gathering evidence and conducting discovery before hearings, including the ability to issue subpoenas for electronic records; * allows special trial judges to hear a broader range of cases when both parties agree; * grants special trial judges the power to punish contempt; * requires Tax Court judges and special trial judges to follow the same conflict-of-interest and recusal rules that apply to federal district court judges; * gives the Tax Court the power to extend filing deadlines for taxpayers when fairness requires it; * and mandates automatic deadline extensions when the court's filing locations are unavailable.
AI-generated summary, pending human review.
| Version | Event | Date | User support | Your vote | Roll calls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original |
Initial publication
Sep 15, 2025
|
Sep 15, 2025 | No votes yet | — | — |
Log in or create an account to record your vote on this legislation. Results are visible to all visitors.
Core Policy Mechanism Top 4
Tax Court subpoena, discovery, and deposition authority
Expands Tax Court power to issue subpoenas for witnesses and evidence — including electronic records — and to take depositions, adding explicit pre-hearing discovery authority intended to help resolve tax disputes faster. Gives the Tax Court explicit power to extend the deadline for filing a tax deficiency petition when fairness requires it, based on the facts of each case — a discretionary authority the court did not clearly have before. Requires automatic extension of the deadline to file a Tax Court petition whenever the court's clerk's office or electronic filing portal is inaccessible — including during government shutdowns — for the duration of the closure plus 14 extra days.
- Population Scope Low Directly affects Tax Court litigants, their counsel, and witnesses — a small fraction of the U.S. population involved in the IRS deficiency disputes.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low No funds are authorized, appropriated, or obligated; court administrative costs from expanded discovery are incidental and unquantified.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Medium Expands procedural tools — pre-hearing discovery, electronic-records subpoenas, equitable tolling, and automatic deadline extensions — binding court conduct and deadlines rather than altering substantive tax liability.
- Degree of Discretion Granted High Equitable tolling is fully discretionary ('based on facts and circumstances'), giving the Tax Court broad case-by-case authority to extend filing deadlines with no enumerated limiting criteria.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Low Adds procedural obligations on the court to manage expanded discovery and tolling requests, but creates no new penalties or compliance infrastructure for external parties.
- Temporal Commitment High Persists indefinitely until Congress acts to repeal or modify it.
No signal yet
Core Policy Mechanism
Tax Court subpoena, discovery, and deposition authority
Core Policy Mechanism Top 4
Contempt authority for special trial judges
Grants special trial judges the power to punish contempt of court, with sentences capped at the level of a Class C misdemeanor, while preserving their existing authority to impose other sanctions. Allows special trial judges to hear any Tax Court case — not just currently permitted categories — when both parties agree, provided the Tax Court adopts rules to implement this expanded jurisdiction.
- Population Scope Low Directly affects parties and witnesses appearing before special trial judges — a small subset of Tax Court litigants.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low No funds are authorized, appropriated, or obligated by this provision.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Medium Creates a new statutory enforcement authority — contempt power with criminal-level sentencing — for a class of judges that previously lacked it, a meaningful but procedurally-scoped change to judicial authority.
- Degree of Discretion Granted Medium Contempt punishment is discretionary within a penalty cap, and the consent-based jurisdiction expansion requires both party agreement and court rulemaking before it becomes operative.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Medium Introduces a new criminal-penalty enforcement mechanism (Class C misdemeanor cap) administered by special trial judges, adding a recurring adjudicative load within Tax Court proceedings.
- Temporal Commitment High Same as above.
No signal yet
Core Policy Mechanism
Contempt authority for special trial judges
Core Policy Mechanism Top 4
Apply federal disqualification rules to Tax Court judges
Requires Tax Court judges and special trial judges to follow the same conflict-of-interest and recusal rules that apply to federal district court judges, closing a gap in existing law.
- Population Scope Low Directly regulates Tax Court judges and special trial judges — a small, defined group — with indirect benefit to litigants in those proceedings.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low Same as above.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Medium Creates a new statutory recusal obligation for Tax Court judges by incorporating 28 U.S.C. § 455 — a new enforceable impartiality duty binding judicial conduct, not a restructuring of substantive law.
- Degree of Discretion Granted Low Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is largely mandatory ('shall disqualify') upon specified circumstances, leaving judges minimal discretion over whether to recuse.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Low Relies on the self-executing recusal standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455 with no new enforcement infrastructure, penalties, or compliance reporting requirements.
- Temporal Commitment High Same as above.
No signal yet
Core Policy Mechanism
Apply federal disqualification rules to Tax Court judges
Carve-outs, Exemptions, Eligibility Top 4
Exception
Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any dismissal which is solely based on a determination of the Tax Court not to toll the period for filing a petition under section 6213(a).
- Population Scope Low Affects only parties whose Tax Court petitions are dismissed solely because the court declined to toll a filing deadline — a narrow, case-specific class.
- Budgetary Magnitude Low No funds are authorized, appropriated, or obligated by this conforming exception.
- Legal / Regulatory Depth Low Carves out a narrow class of dismissals from a specific legal consequence, leaving underlying substantive law unchanged.
- Degree of Discretion Granted Low The exception is self-executing and categorical, leaving no discretionary authority to any actor.
- Implementation & Enforcement Burden Low Creates no new enforcement mechanism, compliance obligation, or administrative load.
- Temporal Commitment High Same as above.
No signal yet
Carve-outs, Exemptions, Eligibility
Exception
Incomplete vote
You have not made a selection on all required items:
Choose Neutral if you prefer not to commit. Leaving without completing will remove all your votes for this bill from the totals.
Maximum recommendations reached
You have already recommended the maximum number of components allowed on this bill. To recommend [new component], choose one of your current recommendations to unselect: